Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comparative Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Denver and other models, asks staff for data and legal review
Summary
After reviewing Denver, Seattle and other jurisdictions' approaches to equity-priority buildings, the committee requested a more detailed covered-buildings dataset, mapping by census tract/TIF/ward, a strategic housing presentation, and a city-legal review on allowable eligibility criteria.
Committee presenters summarized how peer cities define priority buildings and the supports they offer, then discussed what Evanston needs to decide before finalizing criteria.
Presenters highlighted Denver’s model (multifamily threshold 25,000 sq ft; affordability measures such as two-thirds of units restricted or 80% AMI; nonprofit direct-service providers and small commercial owners also eligible), noted Seattle’s deeper affordability thresholds and required affordability covenants for some programs, and observed that Denver ultimately dropped a spatial equity index over legal concerns. Committee members stressed differences in scale and resources between Denver and Evanston — Denver has roughly 3,000 covered buildings compared with about 500 locally — and asked staff to provide a local covered-buildings list with affordability indicators so the committee can judge how many buildings would qualify under various thresholds.
The committee voted earlier in the meeting to approve the EPB goals with a wording edit and then turned to next steps: mapping and data requests (GIS layers by census tract/TIF/ward), a presentation from city housing staff on the strategic housing plan, a short legal review on whether geography or demographic factors can be used in eligibility criteria, and targeted community engagement (focus groups for building owners and tenants, broader surveys, and possible site visits).
A member noted that the technical committee is working on reporting compliance and interim values toward 2050 standards, and that roughly one-third of local covered buildings are not reporting; the committee asked staff to improve the covered-buildings spreadsheet with owner and affordability fields and suggested a small subgroup (limited to two members working at a time for OMA compliance) draft the next materials for committee review.
The meeting closed after assigning those follow-ups; dates for return presentations and the legal memo were not set during the session.
